you cannot have it both ways either!
What am I trying to have both ways?
if one cannot determine the outcome of aspects of an engine design such as valve timeing, bore stroke ratio, VE etc, then you damn sure cannot determine anything about a concrete block.
But you can't exactly predict the effects of many engine design decisions. That's what dynos are for.
This is the nature of mathematical forumulas; the more work you put into them, the better the results you are liable to get. But they're never perfect on anything of any complexity, and thus we perform experiments. The fianancial "rule of 72" is a mathematical model, and it is useful so long as you don't expect too much from it.
But all this is beside the point. It doesn't matter how RA LIster came up with their spec, it's still the spec.
and you are missing the point entirely
it has been asserted that lister only specified the use of a ton of concrete, or a yard whichever it was. it was reported that the yard/ton of concrete was an intergal part of the engine design.
Apparently that's wrong, Lister specified the 600# (as you calculated) in at least one place. This doesn't mean that the block isn't part of the spec.
clearly they provide specifications for both 600 lbs and your ton of concrete, this cannot be mathematically explained with any provable formula, not ever!
How can you say this if you don't know what formula they used? They could have plugged in a different mean time to failure for instance, for whatever reason. If they did in fact use such a formula, they apparently changed a parameter between the 5/1 and 6/1.
But maybe they didn't use a formula at all, maybe the field agents said too many engines were failing in manner X, so they simply increased the block spec. Whatever the case, the block is still part of the spec.
further you miss the mark in that i am not an opponent of the use of concrete, beit 600 #'s or a ton, i simply was looking to find the actual equation, and to date no one includeing yourself has come forward with such formulae, or any reference to lister having used said formulae.
Sorry, no equation here.
quite frankly i don't give a crap what anyone mounts their engine to.
what i do care about is being told to do the math, and not having any proof of an equation ever being used or any reference to an equation.
also i would like to note, that words have meaning, specific meaning
when lister requested the particulars of engine mounting they did not ask for the particulars of engine installation
"mounting" does not equal "installation"
mounting referrs to what the engine is bolted to, and
installation takes into account the soil type, building type and myriad other concerns
I grant this is confusing. However, as with all Lister specs, the one you referenced shows the block as part of the dimensions of the engine. It's not a suggestion, it's the spec. So it makes more sense to reconcile the "particulars of mounting" to it, and not vice versa.
as for you explanation of the difference in 600#s and a ton, being because of altering the spec's of the engine, please how does your accessment carry more water than mine?
You say that a change in the block spec implies that the block is not part of the design. I just don't see it.
the only spec that could account for the large difference in block weight would have to be one of quality of balance, no other spec would result in the need for that much more concrete.
Maybe they did reduce quality of balance. What does this prove though?
as for it being a result of being safety concious, here again i take exection, do you have any supporting evidence that the earlier recommendation of 600#'s of concrete being insufficient and causeing property or bodily damage?? i seriously doubt it.
No, I don't. I don't know or really care why they made the change.
obviously many of you have never worked with a very well balanced machine/engine, one that is properly tuned and set up will run quite nicely sitting flat on the floor.
such an engine is quite a marvel to behold and i have no doubt that the early listers were of this quality.
further i would assert that the A grade engines in later years became the engine of choice for the SOM's
seriously it only makes sense,
I wouldn't know. I'm not making an assertion about this one way or the other.
As an aside, maybe you can explain something to me: is it possible to balance a four-stroke one-cylinder precisely? In my mind's eye I can't see how it could be smooth at idle and also during the power stroke at full HP.
there are those on this board that look to lister as if it was designed, machined, assembled by arch angels, and ordained by God. it is not!
it is simply a good engine, and in some cases an excellent engine built by men, ordinary men, that were craftsman to be sure, but ordinary men that ate, slept and shit just
like each one of us.
i tire very easily when there are those that put lister on some pedestal that is beyond question, one should be able to ask any question of any man or company, and get a clear and concise answer,
All I'm saying that RA Lister specified a concrete block, and thus it is part of the engine design. You don't seem to dispute that all CS specs feature the block, yet you are certain that RA Lister didn't really specify it.
not some crap about "just do the math"
and finally,
i have no doubt that i could build a 6/1 from one of the kits, carefully balancing it either myself or hire it done, detail it properly and have an engine that would run as long as any other listeroid and have it mounted to timbers, 600#s of concrete or even resilient mounted.
i have no more to say on this subject until "someone produces the friggin formulae", anyone supporting the use of concrete as being gospel from god is just full of shit.
bob g
As for 'do the math', you're talking to the wrong person.
The spec says use a concrete block, and you don't deny it. Yet, you say I'm full of shit for reading the spec literally. You, on the other hand, have provided an assortment of reasons for why the spec doesn't actually say what it says. Not only that, at least twice you've tried to shift the burden of proof onto me. I have to prove that Lister considered and rejected resilient mounts. I have to produce Lister's block size equations. If you doubt the spec, fine, so long as you accept the burden of proof.